Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may be absolutely right. It may be able to be worded much better, but if he and I believe the same thing, that we do not want a standing army, the way for us to assure that is to let this amendment go ahead and progress. I have committed to the gentleman that I will work with him as we go through this process and try to get the wording in a way that we can both agree on. But if we kill the amendment here today on the floor of the House, then there is no opportunity for us to do that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In summary, again, I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I are on the same track. We interpret the wording of this amendment a little differently. I think we are on the same track as to what we want to do. I hope that we can work this out. Let me just read again a brief paragraph that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) emphasized: Choi Young-Jin, the Korean diplomat who is the U.N.'s Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping, recently admitted that the U.N. remains committed to establishing a standing army. Now get that, the U.N. remains committed to establishing a standing army. The U.N.'s official spokesman later tried to clarify what Mr. Choi meant to say, that this rapidly deployable headquarters is an interim step, he said, since a standing army is too ambitious for the time being. In other words, one of the leading diplomats, the Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping said that the U.N. is committed to a standing army and, of course, he went too far and so he tried to explain it and then he said, well, that is too ambitious a step for right now.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Taylor) is absolutely right. I think the goals of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and me are the same as the gentleman's probably are. If we can work out a better way to word this so it takes care of the concerns of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I will be happy to do that. We all do not want a standing army, that is what we are all trying to avoid. I would pledge to work with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to see if we cannot get this wording to all of our satisfaction.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which would prohibit the Department of Defense from spending U.S. taxpayer dollars on the assignment or detailing of any member of the U.S. military to duty with the United Nations Rapidly Deployable Missions Headquarters or any similar U.N. organization. As many of you know, this proposed headquarters is intended by the Secretary General of the United Nations to form the core of a standing U.N. military force; now, let me repeat that, a standing U.N. military force. And the administration has already spent a limited amount of funds to help establish the headquarters operation. Now, think about this for a moment. The United Nations wants to create a rapidly deployable standing military force, including United States soldiers, and the administration seems to be willing to go along. I have a quote from the Washington Times that reads, ``The U.N. wants standby forces that could be called up immediately to permit U.N. headquarters to tailor foreign military units to suit the countries or regions to which they are assigned.'' The U.N. complains that under current conditions they must develop each mission from scratch after a vote by the Security Council, and in some cases this can take too long. I think they should have to start from scratch on each mission to ensure nations understand their commitments thoroughly. Why should the committee support this amendment? The answer is the ambiguity of the current administration policy with regard to U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping and other military operations. Although the administration formally denies any intent to assist in the creation of a standing U.N. military force, and despite repeated congressional actions to limit or prohibit the involvement of U.S. forces in many U.N. operations and any such U.N. force, the U.S. State Department transferred $200,000 from its voluntary peacekeeping account in October 1997 to fund the establishment of the U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters, the standing U.N. army. Time and time again this administration has supported peacekeeping operations around the world. They can continue to still do that. But most of those efforts have been controversial. Indeed, the operation in Bosnia is still problematic, and, of course, that is not a U.N. operation. The simple fact is, Congress ought to be involved in any decision to commit U.S. forces to U.N. peacekeeping operations. It is these kinds of open-ended and at times back door operations that have led to this amendment, and I think all Members will agree we should cut off the funds for this organization until a clear statement is made that our troops will be accountable only to United States command and control. What is also disturbing to me is that it is unclear what command arrangements would govern any forces assigned to the U.N. Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. The key question of whether any U.S. troops assigned would be under the command of the U.N. Secretary General or their national command authorities has not been answered. In addition, consider that these forces could be sent out over the objections of the United States Congress. Let me repeat, our forces could be sent into conflict that the Congress does not support or approve of. The United Nations is a forum for international policy discussion, and should remain so. It is also not a sovereign territory. It has no citizens and no constitutional authority to send U.S. troops into harm's way. Member states should make their contributions to peacekeeping and other multilateral efforts involving military forces consistent with their constitutional requirements in each of those countries. We should not be locked into a conflict or a peacekeeping operation simply because we happen to have U.S. personnel in a standing U.N. army. This is not an effort to undercut the U.N., and I would say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I hope you believe this, that I am not here to bash the United Nations with what I am trying to do here. I am simply saying that we want to preserve this Congress' prerogatives in the commitment of United States military forces. In other words, for 50 years we have participated in U.N. operations around the world. We could continue to do that, even if this amendment passes, but we would not have a standing U.N. army under the command and control of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to vote for this amendment and keep U.S. forces under U.S. control. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman who just spoke listened to the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) when he read the statement from the Secretary General's office which says that this is an interim step, that we cannot get the standing army yet, but this is the interim step. So this is the start of their idea of a standing army. I think most of us would agree we do not want a standing army. So where do we stop it? We stop it at the outset.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), the cosponsor of this amendment. (Mr. RYUN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas). (Mr. PAPPAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, what this does is it removes the waiver system under which what happened did happen so no missile-related technology could be transferred to the Chinese.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is actually the Hefley-Ryun amendment, and I would like to speak just a few minutes on it. Mr. Chairman, it is a very simple amendment that would address what I think is a fatal flaw in the Administration's current policy on China. That amendment deals with not all the other things that have been talked about here today, this deals strictly and thoroughly with national security. The amendment would simply prohibit the export or reexport of United States missile technology or equipment to the People's Republic of China. One would think common sense tells us that we should not send any of our defense-related technology or equipment to the only remaining communist country in the world that maintains a nuclear capability. In 1996, the Clinton administration reportedly permitted the two U.S. firms to transfer technology which would improve the accuracy and capability of Chinese ballistic missile forces. Some may say trade involving space launch vehicles and satellite technology used for commercial purposes should not be impeded. But the commercial and military technology in this case are virtually identical, and it is a risk we simply cannot take. If we launch a rocket which has the capability of launching more than one satellite, then we have the same technology that we do for multiple warheads on an intercontinental ballistic missile, same technology. The Chinese had a problem. Their rockets tended to blow up and they tended not to get to where they were supposed to go. So we stepped in and we said, let us help you. Let us fix that. I think if every Member of this body were to ask their constituents back home if the current policy makes sense, they would hear a resounding ``no.'' This is a clear vote to make it harder for potential adversaries to threaten the American people, and I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are voting on H.R. 2556, which authorizes the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Partnerships for Wildlife Act. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is one of several programs devoted to improving wetlands protection in the United States, Canada and Mexico. It matches Federal dollars with contributions from State, local and private organizations for wetland conservation projects in the U.S., Canada and Mexico that support the North American Wildlife Management plan. The program has resulted in the protection of more than 3 million acres of wetlands in the U.S. and Canada over the past seven years. The population of most species of migratory ducks and geese in North America have been increasing for the past several years. It is impossible to say whether or not any single program has caused this increase, but habitat conservation is certainly making an important contribution. There is widespread agreement that the North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a critical part of this effort. The bill, as amended at subcommittee, is strongly supported by Ducks Unlimited and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The Partnerships for Wildlife Act was enacted to ensure that nongame, non-endangered wildlife did not slip through the cracks between existing conservation programs. It also matches Federal dollars with State and local funds to support a wide variety of wildlife conservation and appreciation projects. H.R. 2556 reauthorizes the North American Wetlands Conservation Act at its current authorization levels for three years. I urge Members to vote aye on this important environmental bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2556) to reauthorize the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Partnerships for Wildlife Act, as amended.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have always felt that the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities has been the most bipartisan committee that I have seen since being in the Congress, and I think this year the full committee has indicated that they, too, are a very bipartisan committee, and has produced a product, which, while we are not totally satisfied with it, at least it is a product that I think every Member should support in a bipartisan way. I rise to support H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for 1999. It is a bipartisan bill, it deserves strong bipartisan support, and I want to spend just the few brief moments that I have available to highlight the military construction aspects of this legislation. The Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities continues to be deeply concerned about the serious shortfalls in basic infrastructure. We are all talking about shortfalls, and they are there, and every single subcommittee chairman and ranking member will probably mention this, in military housing and other facilities that affect the readiness and training of the Armed Forces and the quality of life for military personnel and their families. The budget requested by the administration for 1999 continued a pattern of significant deterioration in funding programs by the Department of Defense for military construction. Overall, the administration proposed 7 percent less in military construction's accounts than one year ago, and 15 percent less than the program authorized by Congress. Yet the military services continue to provide testimony and other evidence that their needs are not being met adequately by the administration's program. Based on the record, it is clear that the construction programs of the services would need to be at least twice as large as they currently are to begin to address the backlog of serious shortfalls in facilities. The evidence that antiquated, obsolete, overused inadequate facilities and military housing are an impediment to effective training and readiness and to the assurance of decent quality of life for military personnel is clear to anyone who would care to examine the record built by the subcommittee. Earlier this year, in response to a question from the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) about their unfunded requirements, the service chiefs provided a list of shortfalls across the broad spectrum of need. The unfunded MILCON requirement identified by the chiefs is $7.6 billion. The recommendations the committee brings to the House today will help alleviate a portion of the backlog and critical shortfalls. H.R. 3616 does not go as far as I would like. The fiscal constraints faced by the committee prevented us from providing as much in the way of additional resources as we have over the past three years. This bill, however, contains an additional $450 million in added funding for military construction and military family housing, which would permit us to buy back about one-third of the administration's $1.4 billion cut in the MILCON top line. Given the condition of facilities and the needs identified by the services, it is not enough, but I believe we will make good use of these limited funds. The bipartisan bill would provide an additional $183 million for quality of life enhancements. These funds would provide additional military family housing, troop housing, child development centers, fitness centers and other community support facilities that are integral to the support of military personnel and their families. In addition, it would provide additional funding for military construction to support the training, readiness and maintenance requirements of the active and reserve components. In closing, I want to express again my appreciation to the members of the subcommittee, especially the ranking Democrat member, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), for their contributions to this legislation. This is truly a bipartisan effort, as I stated at the outset, and I urge all Members to support H.R. 3616.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2556, as amended.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?